High Court Karnataka High Court

H N Malige Gowda S/O Ningegowda vs Kariyappa Gowda Since Decd By His … on 27 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
H N Malige Gowda S/O Ningegowda vs Kariyappa Gowda Since Decd By His … on 27 January, 2009
Author: Deepak Verma K.Ramanna


El
II

RIO HIFEEEHALEJI KOPPAL VILLAGE
K:%SABA HOBLJ HOLENARAS§PUR£§ffi’9;1l}¥{‘ ” ‘

HASSAN DI STRICT

R’fiJ EGQW DA

S,/O LATE KARIYAPPA GUWDA

MAJOR

Rfii} HIREHALLE I{(f}PPAL VILL;A,C}E __ . -~
KAS£BA HOBLI H0LENARASiPI;;r:a%A-3_fALU1< ~ _
HASSAN 91$f'RIC'£', * ' "

MAJ SF?

we HiRE;E{AE’1.;Li

;«:R;sHNF, Gowua __
we LATE i«;gR:’iAPPA_ QQWDA

‘KGPFAL V.

KASABA.-H’»’7)B{.I_ I§0LENz’§RfiS–EFL¥i?£ TALUK

HASSAN I::;:Fs’2f1é:c;=’;’ . x

T815 Lamijj;-:fRiéi:JNA*z=»
Ht?LENAR;éu~3¥.PU’i%A
:~1<,:–LE;~m1'sAs;';?::.s2A»T.

"1'£§.3';;U_}{ _ _'

I»a;as:?{;s.1~:' £)1SEfRi£:'F .,
E%?EPRESE?~3'FE:'}_ E3?

SESRETARY V .,

_ 4, gay ié-znfi: R S R’

vlfl
F};

I33ESPCiNDE}N’TiS}

‘ADV. FOR’ R-1 T 4 AND SEE BASAVARAJ

§§iA§§E£>DY,:$3.A’;«.§’OR Qua)

fittiiii

APPEAL :3 FEED 1.1/8 4 OF’ THE KA’z¥NA’1’AKA

. ‘ HIGH <;c3;j:::T MLT mmmc; TE') SET saslm THE @2332 PASSED EN

A WW1' PETITION NC3.320(}9,e'20{)2 BIKTED 01/0612904,

TEES APPEf&L COMING GN 'E3639 HEARING THEE'; DAY,

1' I3IEE?AK VERMAJ. DELIVERED THE: FOLLOWENG:

"%

35-

Not only fiaisfio asccfiam from the judgment on _

was placcd by 1631-med Single Judge, we have triizfij

whethcr in that case Rule 194%. sf fiig

Bat unforiunateiy, the said qzitatiexzy IL¥«?”.1vS’§’81

wrcmg, which deals with Secfiofié’ Mater
Vehicles Act with zzzgazxiifce has no
appiicatien at all the Land
Refozms Act, 1963

6. wt: thceugllt that the
same que$fiéfi”<;z§§1 Tribunal itself and the
appenam Qmgigi b1~§1§gT1%£;«::_o'} gfiaéc 9fT:ribuna1, that nothing

930" is .1"€€iT¥»15é""t3*é3% 10.,'-"'¥? mcause Rule 194; in the Rulcs

" ':iQcs cgfisi pr €\;tiiz1vt§3.r:«jucigcncnt 9f the High Court relied on

tiié Judge does not éeai with the provisions

V of R11i¢"wf£9–.)§,'&–.V-"?iT

H counsc} for appaflant contcnécd that in any

V' ?;.f:z.$é,"°Lh;: Tribunal cannet sit as an Appellate Court over

K -.f11:§ j}¥{i@ent passcd by learned Single Judge and it may find it

T ~[;iiii'fi;:u1t to deal with this question.

I
U!

8. Thus, looking to the matter from all V’

the apinien that the impugzcd order bf u

Single Judge {cannot be su:$£an1′ mi A’ ‘TW§:é”t§;av§:

assiged the I’Ca30I}S as Rule z;ot.V;éS€’gsf’.. “anc§’: tbs: ” L’

judgment said 1:0 be cicaling hcfif’ ‘Rvt13€VA-3E§}–i& and
relied upon by the 1::axncc§’_:;:ot match with
tbs facts «of the? .. = ‘ ” .

9. As sag ta be remanded to
lcanzed §v’rit petition fikzd by
respundc}{;t$ be hazard afresh on merits, in
accordancfi V H

” ;§’1I1Ofli:»ft1_; (jv’j§:>ti(V’)I:: that came to am mind was that

V. be granted yermission to file an apgralicafion

passed by Icalncd Singic Judge but WE

_ havé”<«not:;ii' leameei Single Judge, who had passed thc

fiiirifir, Esincc clcmitted tht: ofice, which would furlzhcr cause

the maitcr. For this mama, the imyugucd Grdcr

VA by the learned. Single Judge is hereby sci aside: and

quashttd. In the facts and cirtumstances of the case, we pass

the following :.n'dcr:~–

33
I’!

The office is directed to pieces: the IIla’lIt£31;”.:_?§:’;}C1Tw{?¥7t:§V H
appropriatr: Eench aficr 15 days h€I’€Qf, ‘Ai9c:’i1cr:§:i1::%.g
learned counsel who have appeared
wcsuld then consider the cm. in .
accordance with Jiaw. VV ‘ V

Thc appeal stands . {§xtcnt mentiancd
lixttrcin above but 790 3 ~ L ”

35/?

Iudgé

sazag
mg;

‘?.4ivss= V